I 12 Ofnatural Corruption and Impotency, and the incapacity of nature, tobear anymore punithment, may make- a difference. This is not a place voluminoufly to prove all this. But ifany Arminians be tempted to fpeakdoubtingly of this Original Guilt, while theyconfefs Original finful privity, i. Blame your own additions toGods Covenant, and your obfcure writings of the thing 3 2. And fay not that they deny Original Sin, butexprefs the matteras it is. tt feemeth that Arminius by Peccatores & rei con((ituti furaus meaneth as we do. C. " I muffconfefiyour explication is rational andconcilatory : But how " canyon excufeCorvinos ? B. Seebuthow he defendeth .Arminius againfF7ilenus, as holding our Original Sin to be truly Sin, and a punifhment for Sin, and you. will think that he denieth it not himfelf: See alfo what Mille fuppofeth him togrant, Cont. Corvin.p. 253, 254. Indeed he doth two much abfeure and extenuate the formalem rationempeccati in comparifon of the ratio ?mein i it. But I much fufped that there is much Logomachie in the con- troverfie, and that it is mottly de nomine peccati non de re. For I per- ceive force of them conceive ofpeccatum as a word that bath only an activefignificationfrom peccare : And becaufean Infant doth notpeccare attualiter, therefore they fay that Original Sin is not firi&ly called Pee- catum,meaning that the Nameproperly agreethonly to an evil Alt. , And can aControverfie de nomine make aherefie ? Afkthem thefe Quetüons? I. Whether an Infant be not animal rationale liberum, as having .the fame natural facultieswith theAdult ? 2. Whether he be not then ca- pableof virtuous and vicious Difpofitions ? 3. And whether thefe are not bonum osmium morale ? If he be not capable ofmalunin morale, thanneither of bonummorale? Andif fo, then not of Holinefs, nor any moral, aptitude for Heaven, any more than a Beati. This theyall deny : and therefore muff needs fay that their vicious inclinations are walnut morale, adapting them not onlyphyfically for phyfical evil, but morally for punithment. And truly if they will call sin filch a moral evil, I will not breakcommunion with themabout the fenfeof Peccare. C. " But Amefius tells Grevinchovius, thatit may beprovedby good " witnes that he denied Original Sin : which Dr. Twi%many times over " andoverrecitethcontraCorvinum. B. As the inffance of three or four fingle perfons is nothing to my bufinefs, fo I am no judge of anyfuch Reports, unlefs I had heard the witnefles my felt. I have had fo manynotorious lyes confidently repor- tedof me by men not contemptible, that it bath taught metube back- ward in receiving an Accufations, and judging beforeI hear the ac- cufed. Efpecially a man that writeth much is more tobe judged of by hisWritings, than by Back- bitersReports. C. "But Epifcopius is no way to be excufed, Nor Bifhop Jer. Taylor,'who "copiouflypleadagainff Original Sin. B. Therefore they are not the perfons that I have nowtodo with; but have elfe-where as copiouflyproved Original Sin, and confuted fuchArgumentsas they ufe.5 But tile chief ofmy Arguments they touch not.. The
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=